Phuzzy wrote:
Your post:
NB I've just re-read the official club statement. The actual words were "we believe the Operational Rules Tribunal made an error of law in its decision or failed to act fairly in a procedural sense"
Thats quite vague and open to interpretation. It could be challenging the grading or challenging the guilt. It could be trying to exploit a loophole but we don't know. Thats my point but please don't assume.
It absolutely is NOT open to interpretation. The appeal can only be appealed on a technicality, not on the guilt of the player which has already been determined.
To put it in the bluntest terms possible to avoid any further fudging of the facts:
You are wrong.
I'm glad you've used some of your post in capital letters. I would've been unable to read it without that so thanks.
The below is an actual lift from the RFL's 578 pages Operational Rules Document
D2:63 The only grounds for appeal are that the Operational Rules Tribunal
i) came to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come, or
ii) made an error of law in reaching its decision or
iii) failed to act fairly in a procedural sense or
iv) the sanction imposed was so excessive or lenient (in the case of the Compliance Manager) as to be unreasonable.
So tell me...
How does point 4 relate to a technicality? Surely that is to do with grading. There is nothing in the policy that differentiates between this and an appeal of an appeal.
I sincerely hope that you don't manage people in your job because if you communicate with them how you do on here then I really do feel sorry for them. You're unbelievably condescending.
